Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=2496269

This conversation began on the above link in the Poser forum.

I am making a film that has no chase scenes, no fly-thru, no future city, no fantasy. It's a fun but serious relationship film. It consists of mostly conversation, body language, boy meets girl, you get the picture.

I'd welcome any close critical observations on this snippet. It is my current training sequence, strictly for animation, not lights, texture, props, etc.

I am going for natural continuous motion, believability.

Clips require Quicktime 7, encoded with h.264. Clips are about 1.5 MB. Best to download and blow up twice size of full screen to see the subtle movements.

prior attempt with strand hair, texture, AO, click here.

current shaded cage, improved animation, click here

Thanks for any detailed comments.

::::: Opera :::::

Message edited on: 12/08/2005 20:27

Attached Link: http://www.jrdonohue.com/glow001i.mov

The link in the post above for "prior clip" has a problem; you can right-click and download, but don't single click to play. The link on THIS post is the same sequence with glow effects. og

Message edited on: 12/08/2005 20:41

Hey, I checked out the wire version, and it's not bad. In fact, it's quite good, but still has lots of room for improvement.

The back of the neck looks very strange when the character bends it's head down. I'm not sure if that's a skinning problem, a mesh problem, or a combination of both. You might try working on that part a little more. Also, better check the finger positions again. The pinky seems to be in an odd position. Maybe it's the POV, but it doesn't look right.

You have some nice subtle movements in the face, which I do like a lot. A little more work, and it should be good.

Message edited on: 12/08/2005 22:56

Well First of all I have to say good luck. That is very difficult to get. I don't understand if you want to get only natural motion or also photorealistic look? Keep in mind that, just as I said in the "talk back" section of my front page article (advent children), the closer you get to photoreal the more it looks fake. As for the animation. This may sound a little lame but I've found that it proves more useful to "feel" the movement rather than look at it on the mirror or on a tape. Somehow it makes you understand better the body movement :p And again, good luck...

i noticed that back of the neck issue, will look into it tomorrow. it might be a limit of the model. nemirc, I am going for natural motion in animation. I have not yet settled on how far to push the photo-real, or to back away from it. I know what you mean by "feel." That's what I do. I don't use a mirror. ::::: Opera :::::

"i noticed that back of the neck issue, will look into it tomorrow. it might be a limit of the model."

Try reducing the bending angle of the neck, and compensate for it with more bending on the head and a little bit on the torso.

One thing I hate about most Poser rigs is that there usually aren't enough bones (segments) in the torso or neck to get proper curvature from the "spine". It's not the fault of the mesh, it's a problem with the rig. Message edited on: 12/09/2005 01:00

Are you using Victoria3?

no, the modelis P5NudeWoman with 3Dream's Eternal Judy morphs. It is difficult to overcome that neck thing, I just tried. For this segment, I am going to continue by changing the camera angle. Working on another solution, as well. ::::: Opera :::::

John, if all else fails, try using magnets.

The holds are too solid. It looks robotic. Moving holds is what she needs. Don't let her stop moving for more than a frame or two. On the frames where you have her not moving right now, instead you should have her moving slowly. She should be easing into the next pose. You should be thinking about how her emotion affects her speed, as well as her body language. You are going to have a lot of hard work ahead of you if you want to get this done. Take a look at the book, "Stop Staring! Facial Modeling and Animation Done Right" by Jason Osipa. The book is full of great instruction on easy lip synching that looks far better than automated lip synch, as well as eye & eyebrow animation. It's written for Maya, but there is a lot of great, non program specific information in it, but there's also a lot of stuff in there that Poser can't do, like pose slider driven bump maps(For wrinkles that really wrinkle), two-dimensional pose sliders (They really do make things so much easier), and custom interfaces. Still, there is a lot that will help add some polish to your animation. An important thing to remember is that the level of detail for your animation must be consistent with the level of detail that you put into everything else. The more realistic you make the world, the more accurate your animation is going to have to be.

Hey brainmuffin, I've seen people animate faces using those weird "interfaces". I've seen they make those complex face rigs for that. Is that the only way to do it or does the book explain a different method? As for the LOD being consistent with the animation, that is true, but not on both directions, lol. Take The Incredibles, for example. The animation is good but the characters don't wow you at all (at least not me). On the other hand, a photorealistic character must move realistically if you want to sell the effect. I still have my doubts about you aiming at hyper-realism. That will only serve as an excuse for your audience to be extremely critical. Focus on the story and settle for a visual style and you are done. If the story is good and the work has good quality you've got a winner.

You are wrong brainmuffin. The holds are not too long nor too solid. Did you download and blow it up double or to full screen? There is continuous subtle movement that will be obvious. But even then, the semi-long nearly-steady holds are deliberate. And....this is a test render with no hair, you should get your imagination to fill in the hair movement and settling as part of the whole. Even though you slammed your opinion pretty hard with no interogative, I give you slack: you don't have the soundtrack. She is thinking about certain things. The headshake is both a reaction and a gesture of throwing off a "too-good" thought. She is also enjoying the early-morning slanted sunlight and the sensuosness of her own hair. Did you ever get stopped still by a daydream? And...my current inspiration is The Animators Survival Kit by Richard Williams. nemirc, I am right on your point. I am not going to go super-hyper-real and fuss to the point of insanity. The film consists of 16 segments. I am producing this segment with dynamic hair, AO, normal textures, skin shaders. Once it comes together with voice-over and music, I'll have a better opinion about if the render style is (as you point out) too close to on-the-nose realism and therefore an excuse and target for criticism. Thanks for your comment. I should have another version by Monday or Tuesday. ::::: Opera :::::

"Take The Incredibles, for example. The animation is good but the characters don't wow you at all"

I don't know about that... you didn't find the strand-based hair amazing when it got all wet in the water?

Like I said in the other thread, NO ONE is going to be fooled into thinking what they're seeing here is live action anyway, and I don't think that's the intention. They're going to know it's CG right from the start, and the only people who will be overly critical about the "looks" of the characters are the people like us who are involved in the industry on some level! The average audience, who have no knowledge of how these things are even done, will be amazed at how "real" they look, even if they don't look very realistic to US.

I say go for realism, just concentrate more on the animation than the rendering style. Try to "wow" the audience with how realistic the MOTIONS are, and you'll do alright. Message edited on: 12/09/2005 23:54

"I say go for realism, just concentrate more on the animation than the rendering style" Perfect advice. BTW, although most of you probably already know/do this, I've settled into a productive way of attacking the animation. I turn off the background, the clothes, the hair. I leave the lights on. Using "smooth shaded" I try to get my preview looking as much like my final as possible. Then I run the animation over and over, sometimes with "skip frames" on (which throws it into near real time) but mostly with it off, and watch each fram unfold. I take notes on paper, including frame number where something is not right. Then, I "make movie" to .avi with preview mode chosen. On my computer, this can spin out about 2-3 frames PER SECOND, so I have a 620 frame clip at 720x540 in the time it takes to go make coffee. I run that movie over and over, taking more notes. Then I go in, SAVE OUT AN INCREMENTAL COPY, and begin tweaking the animation, cycle same over and over. I love the graph editor, of course, although it won't "grow wide" on my big LCD (although the dope sheet will.) Man, that fast movie render under preview mode is just fantastic. ::::: Opera :::::

the only people who will be overly critical about the "looks" of the characters are the people like us who are involved in the industry on some level! The average audience, who have no knowledge of how these things are even done, will be amazed at how "real" they look, even if they don't look very realistic to US. Sadly that is not what happens to me, lol. I remember people telling me "that looks like CG" or "that doesn't look photorealistic" and my answer always goes like "I know, but I don't care. I want it to be stylized, not photoreal". I specially got such comments on works like these: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=988360&Start=1&Artist=nemirc&ByArtist=Yes http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=1050703&Start=1&Artist=nemirc&ByArtist=Yes As for the incredibles thing. After I watched Sully from Monsters Inc, some pointy-hair character is not that amazing :p

My litmust test will be Christmas Eve. Gathering of family and friends. I am pushing to have story 1 of 16 compeleted by then. Now that my uncertainy has been left behind, I am full speed ahead. ::::: Opera :::::

"I remember people telling me "that looks like CG" or "that doesn't look photorealistic" and my answer always goes like "I know, but I don't care."

I think the question is, who will this be marketed to? Surely, sci-fi and anime fans are more CG savvy than the audience who is interested in romance stories.

I just have a hard time imagining that the people who are most likely to see this will actually give a rats ass about the style it was rendered in. They will most likely only like/dislike it based on the story and emotion. The quality of the actual animation itself will also lend to those elements, regardless if it's rendered "photo-realistically" or NPR. I think that's where it will hit or miss. Message edited on: 12/10/2005 10:29

I think the quality of the story will decide wether or not they focus more on the visuals themselves. This doesn't serve as an excuse to make a "poor quality" work. This also happens with live action movies. I can't reckon how many times my friends tell me "the movie was awful but at least the actress was hot so that made it worthwhile"... same goes for VFX-packed movies: "the movie sucks, but those VFX were extremely cool!" Just remember the Robert Rodrigez way: what an effects shot lacks in perfection, make up in style B) I am currently working on a project that also involves "natural motion" using human characters, and since I can't make them photorealistic look (because my skills on that department pretty much suck, lol) I am going after a "film noir"/"sky-capitanish" look hehe.

Attached Link: http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18519

nemirc: The custom interfaces make it a lot easier. It becomes like tweaking four sliders at once, with one handle. Fewer controls to tweak means less time spent fiddling with each frame, which adds up. We're supposed to be getting a nifty new face rig on "The Tin Woodsman of Oz", along with a squetchy skeleton. I look forward to playing around with it. It's actually going to become the new standard A:M rig. As for whether or not you really need slider driven bump maps for wrinkles on a realistic head, take a look at the films here: http://www.jasonosipa.com/Downloads/Movies/NVidia%20Demo%20Movies/ Pay close attention to 5-10. They compare animated motions with and without the wrinkles. How much more tension and emotion is there in the creased scrunch vs. the uncreased? Besides, Nemirc, you've got Maya, don't you? You can do al those nifty things! Buy the book. You won't regret it. While you're at it, Buy The Setup Machine for Maya. I've got the Animation:Master version, and it rocks. And it doesn't even do all the stuff the Maya version does. Operaguy: I stand behind what I said. She's holding too perfectly still after that first head turn for too long.There should be some subtle motion while she's looking off. A slight imperceptible nod perhaps, or maybe she could just raise her chin slightly in the pause. Even just breating, the slight rise and fall of her chest, would help make her look more alive right there. You also need to animate her eyes moving. Right now they're practicaly locked in place in her head. Her eyes should either lead her head on turns or trail behind, they really shouldn't just turn with the head, unless you throw a blink into the turn, which this one really doesn't need. I suggest having the eyes look over a frame before the head starts turning. you should only need one or two frames for the eyes to move. There should be some other eye movements in there as well. She probably shouldn't pause after she dips her head. I'd have her already shaking her head as she's dipping down, and her eyes should be closing on the way down, and closed when she's shaking it. More eyebrow animation would also help show what she's feeling. I shouldn't need the dialogue to tell what's going on in this shot. All the clues should be there on her face, most of it in her eyes and eyebrows, but right now it isn't. I'm not saying these things to attack you. I'm not getting some perverse pleasure out of poking holes in your performance. I'm going through the same thing myself. I've got an animation director and my bootcamp instructor giving me critiques. I have to redo a run animation, and I'm still not finished with redoing mrball for the third time. Here's three pages of me getting picked on: http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18519&st=0 And, I have to polish all of that off before I can get to the point where I can start animating subtle facial expression. Here's what I'm working through: http://www.hash.com/amtutes/Bootcamp/ABCultra.html I haven't even heard from the other 2?-3? animation directors on the project yet. I had a brief conversation with the director, though. We talked about "Madagascar". I'm going to have to talk to him about my animation sooner or later, and he's directed at Disney. Bob's a nice guy though, so hopefully he won't be too tough on me.

I'll digest what you have to say. I don't mind pointed remarks and your suggestions about leading with the eyes are making me think. I haven't read your pages yet, but thanks for at least qualifying a little, otherwise your "shoulds" just get tossed over the side at once. Meanwhile, I've sent this clip to my render condo and am on to other sequences. Probably return to post-process it mid-week. ::::: Opera :::::

Attached Link: http://www.3dknockouts.com/videos/eyemove.mov

I agree with brainmuffin about leading with the eyes. It's very important. Coincidentally, I'm working on a scene right now where I've had to take that into account. Take a look at the attached link. Hopefully, the eye movements are evident. I'm pretty sure they're correct.

Maxxx, perhaps a little ancillary facial movement in her expressions as she turns her head would perfect the shot. Eye movement looks good from here. The visual aesthetic of that scene is impressive also, Maxxx. HDRI, I presume? I like the way her skin looks, with what appears to be some SSS going on there.

Very convincing Greg. I actually like her supporting torso and shoulder movements as much as the eye movements. That little step-back right near the end works. I don't put in as many blinks as you do. She does blink a lot. Is she coming out of the dark into the light just before this scene? I have to laugh at your solution for hair. Perfectly suits her! And your render budget too, I bet! Good choice. ::::: Opera :::::

brainmuffin: is there any place where I can see how that setup machine works? All I see is the "product description". maxxxmodelz: nice eye-lead animation B)

Nevermind. I found it B)

Now Maxx, that's VERY good.On a less realistic character that might even be enough,although as luvver already pointed out she should be doing something with her eyebrows and the rest of her face, subtle changes here and there to show a thought process. Overlapping the rotation channels, especially on the head might look a bit more natural. (So that the rotation doesn't simultaneously stop on the same frame for all channels). There should be some overal overlap for the big turns, too. The eyes turn first, then the head, then the neck, then the chest, etc. The perfect squareness of her shoulders bothers me. They should be slumped even slightly, and they could have some slight movement to accentuate the thought process too. Kristin McKee, of Anzovin Studios, on her "Animate! with Christin McKee" cds, said that before anything she does gets finalized, she checks to make sure that no part of the body is not moving, even if only slightly. If you leave something sitting still for too long, the character dies a little. You've got a lot of potential, though, Maxx.

That's the problem with 3d animation. You can't hold anything for an extended period of time. In 2d animation you make long holds and they can even be funny sometimes... damn 3d, lol.

Attached Link: http://home.comcast.net/~t.vining/Scene01_high.mov

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'll agree with the comments about the importance of the eye movements--despite all the other subtleties you put in an animation, it's the eyes that people are looking at--and add two things: 1. If I can suggest, you might try using the "point at" feature for the eye movements, since, even when somebody is looking at "nothing" they're almost always actually focusing on something, and their eyes will track on that thing when they move their head, even a little, until they look at something else. (I use a "ball" prop--made invisible--that I move around as needed.) Upshot is that the eyes should never move with the head. 2. The other thing is that you generally don't actually see people's eyes move around that much--people usually blink when they move their head to look at something else, and the eye moves to its new position in that small interval while the eyes are closed. (And, specifically for this clip, I'd expect the character to close her eyes while she shakes her head.) Anyway, my 2 cents. --T PS: attached url is to a clip I previously posted here and got my own working-over for (which I recognize as a compliment in this forum)--I include it only as an example of my eye-movement solution.

I figure that frenetic eye movement would only be useful if the character is in a high emotional state... just my 3 cents B)

Eye movement is pretty frenetic in and of itself... Even when we aren't focusing on anything in particular, our gaze shifts each time our train of thought changes tracks. So it stands to reason that the more frantic our thoughts are, the faster our gaze will shift.

Hi Brainmuffin! long time no see.

Hey Bob. Haven't seen you since they shut cheryle's place. I've been lurking around in here again since I joined on the "Tin Woodsman" project. Sorry about cancelling the project. I've been trying to get started doing some "Photoshop for 3D" tutorials, but I'm having a hard time working with such large files. If I were going to do dvd-roms, they wouldn't be a problem, but I wanted to put them on cdrs, because I know a place that'll burn them and drop-ship. What've you been up to? You can pm me here if you want. I'm between e-mail adresses for a few days...